Filed: Jun. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2687 EDWARD F. HODGES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TRIGON INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield, Defendant - Appellee, and BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF VIRGINIA, INCORPO- RATED, formerly known as Trigon Incorporated, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-583-3) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: Ju
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2687 EDWARD F. HODGES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TRIGON INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield, Defendant - Appellee, and BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF VIRGINIA, INCORPO- RATED, formerly known as Trigon Incorporated, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-583-3) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: Jun..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2687 EDWARD F. HODGES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TRIGON INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield, Defendant - Appellee, and BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF VIRGINIA, INCORPO- RATED, formerly known as Trigon Incorporated, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-583-3) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward F. Hodges, Appellant Pro Se. Paul H. Anderson, BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward F. Hodges appeals the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in Hodges' civil suit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hodges v. Trigon Ins. Co., No. CA-97-583-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2